Mayflower District Court
#state-of-mayflower-v-clark-county-et-al
This is the start of #state-of-mayflower-v-clark-county-et-al channel.
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-09 09:35 p.m.
clerkFlow pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:16 p.m.
Kezzera 2025-08-09 09:35 p.m.
FOR SINGHSKI, J
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-09 09:38 p.m. Permissions have been synced to
Channel Permissions Synced
Chambers of Hon’ble Judge SinghskiKezzera 2025-08-09 09:39 p.m.@singhski
singhski used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-09 09:41 p.m. @singhski has added @ian to the case channel.
Case Modified
singhski 2025-08-09 09:41 p.m.@ian County Attorney, file NOA
singhski used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-09 09:42 p.m. @singhski has added @james to the case channel.
Case Modified
singhski used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-09 09:42 p.m. @singhski has added @bob78711new to the case channel.
Case Modified
singhski used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-09 09:42 p.m. @singhski has added @meowiitten to the case channel.
Case Modified
singhski used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-09 09:42 p.m. @singhski has added @dero to the case channel.
Case Modified
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:43 p.m.
Good evening. Good evening. Good evening.
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:44 p.m.
I would like a temporary restraining order (colloquially known as a TRO), either with or without briefing if you prefer that. Please let me know!
singhski 2025-08-09 09:44 p.m.
I would like any responsive pleading to be filed ASAP, preferably within the next few hours @ian . I understand this is an important issue which will reach the Supreme Court.
meowiittenI would like a temporary restraining order (colloquially known as a TRO), either with or without briefing if you prefer that. Please let me know!
singhski 2025-08-09 09:44 p.m.
Perhaps you could file it on paper and we can have a hearing(edited)
singhski 2025-08-09 09:45 p.m.
Vc hearing
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:45 p.m.
Actually since there is two judicial decisions already confirming what we know
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:45 p.m.
That it is defunct
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:45 p.m.
The proper course of action might be summary judgment briefed on a PI schedule
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:45 p.m.
So expedited summary judgment
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:45 p.m.
See Wilcox v. Trump
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:46 p.m.
There is only a single question of law to decide
singhski 2025-08-09 09:46 p.m.
I see
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:46 p.m.
And then the defendants can do a cross-motion
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:46 p.m.
for summary judgment
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:46 p.m.
And then you can rule
singhski 2025-08-09 09:46 p.m.
I do still want a hearing tomorrow
singhski 2025-08-09 09:46 p.m.@ian @meowiitten
singhski 2025-08-09 09:47 p.m.
Or whenever you both have it on paper
ian 2025-08-09 09:48 p.m.@singhski where is the complaint and motion
BotclerkFlowClick to see attachment.
singhski 2025-08-09 09:48 p.m.
. @ian
singhski 2025-08-09 09:49 p.m.
Motion hasn’t been filed yet but the State has indicated they will be doing so shortly.
ian 2025-08-09 09:50 p.m.
R
ian 2025-08-09 09:51 p.m.@singhski perhaps I'm just confused, because
ian 2025-08-09 09:51 p.m.
The attorney general has already filed a quo warranto action
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:51 p.m.
That only removes them from the board
ian 2025-08-09 09:51 p.m.
Is this not identical to that?
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:51 p.m.
No
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:52 p.m.
This declares and enjoins them from enforcing the charter
ian 2025-08-09 09:52 p.m.
Additionally your honor we are also already preliminarily enjoined
meowiittenThat only removes them from the board
singhski 2025-08-09 09:52 p.m.
^
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:52 p.m.
And restores the status quo which is the State Senate and Governor control the county
ianAdditionally your honor we are also already preliminarily enjoined
singhski 2025-08-09 09:52 p.m.
Are you talking about the decision rendered by Ret. Judge Gobies?
meowiittenThis declares and enjoins them from enforcing the charter
ian 2025-08-09 09:52 p.m.
Why is that needed if there isn't anyone to enforce it in the first place
singhski 2025-08-09 09:52 p.m.
or has there been a recent decision
singhskiAre you talking about the decision rendered by Ret. Judge Gobies?
ian 2025-08-09 09:52 p.m.
No, The Hon'ble Rummy
ian 2025-08-09 09:52 p.m.
Just like
ian 2025-08-09 09:52 p.m.
3 hours ago or so
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:53 p.m.
Because the underlying charter constituting their actions is still "in force"
UserMessage could not be loaded.
ian 2025-08-09 09:53 p.m.
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:53 p.m.
And they still rely on it
ian 2025-08-09 09:53 p.m.state-of-mayflower-danielcrusoe-et-al
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:53 p.m.
Actually for that matter, there's no barrier to proceeding to summary judgment since this is a related case
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:53 p.m.
If you claim so
singhski 2025-08-09 09:53 p.m.
Speak clearly are you saying this is a decided controversy
meowiittenActually for that matter, there's no barrier to proceeding to summary judgment since this is a related case
ian 2025-08-09 09:53 p.m.
That was just preliminary, no facts were concluded on
singhski 2025-08-09 09:53 p.m.@ian
singhskiSpeak clearly are you saying this is a decided controversy
ian 2025-08-09 09:53 p.m.
No
ian 2025-08-09 09:53 p.m.
I am saying this is a duplicate, frivolous action
singhski 2025-08-09 09:54 p.m.
ok stop talking for a second
ianClick to see attachment.
singhski 2025-08-09 09:55 p.m.
no this is different @ian
singhskino this is different @ian
ian 2025-08-09 09:56 p.m.
To me it's kind of the same
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:57 p.m.
Frivolous was kind of mean
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:57 p.m.
I spent a lot of time on the complaint
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:57 p.m.
:/
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:57 p.m.
:/
meowiittenFrivolous was kind of mean
ian 2025-08-09 09:57 p.m.
I'm sorry I should've used the word unnecessary instead
ian 2025-08-09 09:57 p.m.
That would attack the purpose of your complaint but not its contents or merit
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:57 p.m.
I wouldn't say it's duplicate since for that matter Singhski would be inclined to also grant some kind of PI in this case
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:58 p.m.
From your perspective I would say it is not duplicate
ian 2025-08-09 09:58 p.m.
Your end goal is to stop the enforcement of a county charter that is law
ian 2025-08-09 09:58 p.m.
Coming from people that are already enjoined from doing so
ian 2025-08-09 09:58 p.m.
Seems odd to me is all
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:58 p.m.
Filing related cases isn't actually not allowed
ian 2025-08-09 09:58 p.m.
I know but I dont think there is a controversy here
ian 2025-08-09 09:58 p.m.
Certainly no irreparable harm
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:58 p.m.
Uhhh
ian 2025-08-09 09:59 p.m.
clearly you're acting under that parent of the people doctrine right
ian 2025-08-09 09:59 p.m.
Weird latin name
ian 2025-08-09 09:59 p.m.
Padris or soemthing
singhski 2025-08-09 09:59 p.m.
Who are the quo warranto respondents
singhski 2025-08-09 09:59 p.m.
list their names
ian 2025-08-09 09:59 p.m.
Ok
meowiitten 2025-08-09 09:59 p.m.
Just the county commissioners
ian 2025-08-09 09:59 p.m.
Ashleypueri robertrosenthal
ian 2025-08-09 09:59 p.m.
County of clark
ian 2025-08-09 09:59 p.m.
Arvantise
ian 2025-08-09 09:59 p.m.
1 more
ian 2025-08-09 10:00 p.m.
Accurateswalker
singhski 2025-08-09 10:00 p.m.
So this one seeks to enjoin more people, correct? @meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:00 p.m.
Yeah and enjoin the charter entirely and restore the status quo, which is that the Senate and Governor control the cunty
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:00 p.m.
county
singhski 2025-08-09 10:00 p.m.
because you write “Defendants” plural, collectively referring to them all
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:00 p.m.
Yes I mean that's intentional
singhski 2025-08-09 10:00 p.m.@ian It is different in that regard
singhski 2025-08-09 10:00 p.m.
Does that make sense?
singhski 2025-08-09 10:01 p.m.
well everything else is different that was your point of confusion
singhskiian 2025-08-09 10:01 p.m.
It would make more sense frankly to amend the quo warranto
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:01 p.m.
If this case is identical as you say then that would support my argument for a PI since a judge would want consistency in rulings even if it's from the same court
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:01 p.m.
Is what I was gonna say
ian 2025-08-09 10:01 p.m.
Well no
singhski 2025-08-09 10:01 p.m.
wdym no
ian 2025-08-09 10:01 p.m.
The injunction was granted procedurally as part of it being a quo warranto action
ian 2025-08-09 10:01 p.m.
This isn't a quo warranto
ian 2025-08-09 10:01 p.m.
There is a standard here for a PI/TRO
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:01 p.m.
He didn't have to grant the injunction
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:01 p.m.
It's not automatic
singhski 2025-08-09 10:01 p.m.
the point of injunctions is to maintain the status quo..?
meowiittenIt's not automatic
ian 2025-08-09 10:01 p.m.
It is
singhskithe point of injunctions is to maintain the status quo..?
singhski 2025-08-09 10:02 p.m.@ian
singhskithe point of injunctions is to maintain the status quo..?
ian 2025-08-09 10:02 p.m.
Yes but irreparable harm is needed in a civil action whereas it is not in quo warranto
ian 2025-08-09 10:02 p.m.
It's automatic
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:02 p.m.
Are you saying we can't be harmed
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:02 p.m.
I'm a little confused
singhski 2025-08-09 10:03 p.m.
Counsellor you aren’t speaking clearly and I feel as though you are making up your arguments on the spot @ian
singhski 2025-08-09 10:03 p.m.
Do you want to come back in a few hours?
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:03 p.m.
We don't need to bring this under the parens patriae doctrine because this is brought under the constitution
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:03 p.m.
"The Governor shall be responsible for the faithful execution of the laws. He may, by appropriate court action or proceeding brought in the name of the State, enforce compliance with any constitutional or legislative mandate, or restrain violation of any constitutional or legislative power, duty, or right by any officer, department, or agency of the State or any of its political subdivisions."
singhskiCounsellor you aren’t speaking clearly and I feel as though you are making up your arguments on the spot @ian
ian 2025-08-09 10:03 p.m.
I'm trying to defend this spontaneously yes because I have to go to sleep and don't have time to write anything or review thoroughly
meowiitten"The Governor shall be responsible for the faithful execution of the laws. He may, by appropriate court action or proceeding brought in the name of the State, enforce compliance wi...
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:04 p.m. 
ian 2025-08-09 10:04 p.m.
If the motion for TRO is as urgent as it is purported to be
ian 2025-08-09 10:04 p.m.
Then I wont have time to defend
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:04 p.m.
No we're moving for summary judgment now
ian 2025-08-09 10:04 p.m.
When I wake up it will be granted
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:04 p.m.
I was placing it in the respect of a PI
meowiittenNo we're moving for summary judgment now
ian 2025-08-09 10:04 p.m.
Moving for SJ after only a complaint
ian 2025-08-09 10:04 p.m.
ok
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:05 p.m.
Yeah it's possible
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:05 p.m.
It happens a lot in cases that only involve questions of law only(edited)
ian 2025-08-09 10:06 p.m.
You're saying a case can get to the point of summary judgment wholly unilaterally
ian 2025-08-09 10:06 p.m.
I haven't even filed a NOA it's late
singhski 2025-08-09 10:07 p.m.
ok so basically
singhski 2025-08-09 10:07 p.m.
In Wilcox the U.S DC Judge Howell was convinced that expedited summary judgment was warranted
singhski 2025-08-09 10:07 p.m.
because of circumstances similar to this
singhski 2025-08-09 10:08 p.m.
but before that @meowiitten I must ask you to file a motion for expedited summary judgment
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:09 p.m.
Yeah working on it
singhskibecause of circumstances similar to this
singhski 2025-08-09 10:09 p.m.
There, I believe there was only one issue right? @meowiitten in relation to the NLRA(edited)
singhski 2025-08-09 10:10 p.m.
whether the President could remove NLRB members the way he did
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:11 p.m.
1
The standard for expedited summary judgment is (1) regular summary judgment standard, and (2) meeting the standard for an injunction (PI/TRO)
1singhskiThere, I believe there was only one issue right? @meowiitten in relation to the NLRA(edited)
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:11 p.m.
Yeah
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:11 p.m.
Same here
singhski 2025-08-09 10:11 p.m.
Good. Good good good
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:11 p.m.
Whether or not the county government is defunct basically
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:11 p.m.
And if so then
meowiitten 2025-08-09 10:11 p.m.
Basically State Senate and Governor controls and yeah
ian 2025-08-09 10:14 p.m.
I am very sleepy
singhski 2025-08-09 10:14 p.m.@ian will need you to vc tmrw
singhski 2025-08-09 10:14 p.m.
or whenever you file your response
singhski 2025-08-09 10:14 p.m.
You can type but I think you’d be at a severe disadvantage.
ian 2025-08-09 10:15 p.m.
Lil guy is eepy like me
singhskiian 2025-08-09 10:15 p.m.
I cant ill type
meowiitten 2025-08-10 02:19 a.m.PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SUMMARY JUDGMENT
@singhski @ian
meowiitten 2025-08-10 02:22 a.m.PLAINITFF'S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SUMMARY JUDGMENT
@singhski @ian
singhski 2025-08-10 01:18 p.m.@ian Reply?
singhskiian 2025-08-10 01:21 p.m.
would you like me to provide an answer, or a reply to the motion
ianwould you like me to provide an answer, or a reply to the motion
singhski 2025-08-10 01:21 p.m.
Answer first preferably
singhski 2025-08-10 01:22 p.m.
answer necessary because I need to see if there is a legitimate factual dispute
ian 2025-08-10 01:22 p.m.
I'm asking because ordinarily we'd have 7 days for an answer
singhski 2025-08-10 01:22 p.m.
I would like for this to be resolved as quickly as humanly possible
ian 2025-08-10 01:22 p.m.
I'll do my best your honor
singhskianswer necessary because I need to see if there is a legitimate factual dispute
meowiitten 2025-08-10 02:27 p.m.
There wasn’t an answer in the Wilcox case but maybe that was by choice
meowiitten 2025-08-10 02:27 p.m.
It was just complaint -> motion for summary judgment -> cross-motion for summary judgment -> decision
meowiitten 2025-08-10 02:31 p.m.
Basically the idea here is like:
-> both parties agree that the “emergency session” took place, and all of these appointments happened (the only fact) -> was it legal? (question of law)
-> both parties agree that the “emergency session” took place, and all of these appointments happened (the only fact) -> was it legal? (question of law)
singhski 2025-08-10 02:31 p.m.
Actually
singhski 2025-08-10 02:31 p.m.
Let me check if our rules have anything which don’t require answers when another dispositive motion is pending
meowiitten 2025-08-10 02:32 p.m.
I can point to other cases in this district court that allowed what I have done here a lot of them were under Cabot
singhski 2025-08-10 02:32 p.m.
Well in Wilcox they also expeditiously filed any evidence so that an evidentiary record could be built @meowiitten
singhskiWell in Wilcox they also expeditiously filed any evidence so that an evidentiary record could be built @meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-10 02:33 p.m.
There’s not really any exhibits to file other than the letter
meowiitten 2025-08-10 02:33 p.m.
I can do that actually
singhski 2025-08-10 02:33 p.m.
That way the no genuine dispute as to factual matter standard could be met
meowiitten 2025-08-10 02:33 p.m.
It’s the one exhibit that matters
singhski 2025-08-10 02:33 p.m.
My point being don’t tell me what you admit or deny @ian
meowiittenmeowiitten 2025-08-10 02:34 p.m.Office of the District Attorney Mersea, M.F. 20530 August 8, 2025 RELEASE FOR RECORD FROM: CLARK COUNTY SHERIFF & DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUBJECT: JOINT STATEMENT FROM THE SHERIFF AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY REGARDING THE APPEARANCE OF A COUNTY BOARD WITHIN THE SPAN OF AN HOUR Dear Citizens of Clark, ... 
EXHIBIT A:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yASOEsw79u0JxGgJp6QeIpLewkScJ2w6VeQvuO37JVI/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yASOEsw79u0JxGgJp6QeIpLewkScJ2w6VeQvuO37JVI/edit?usp=sharing
singhski 2025-08-10 02:34 p.m.
Just show me the actual evidence you have. If your evidence conflicts, there will be a factual dispute. If not, I can decide now
meowiitten 2025-08-10 02:34 p.m.
There that's the only exhibit I have to give
meowiitten 2025-08-10 02:34 p.m.
It's also cited in the motion and complaint
singhski 2025-08-10 02:35 p.m.
And anyways mere denials aren’t always necessary(edited)
singhski 2025-08-10 02:35 p.m.
the substance of the cause stands or falls on the evidence adduced so please attach that @ian
singhski 2025-08-10 02:35 p.m.
Along with any opposition to the motion and cross motion
meowiitten 2025-08-10 04:01 p.m.@singhski Did you want a hearing or
singhski 2025-08-10 05:15 p.m.@ian @meowiitten How about in two hours?
meowiitten 2025-08-10 05:16 p.m.1
Alright if it's VC/stage
1singhski 2025-08-10 05:16 p.m.@ian Do you have a cross motion + opp. for me yet or nahy
ian 2025-08-10 05:17 p.m.@walter! I believe the district attorney will be filing an appearance
ian 2025-08-10 05:17 p.m.
in my place
singhski 2025-08-10 05:18 p.m.@bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-08-10 05:32 p.m.@singhski this is being litigated in state-of-mayflower-danielcrusoe-et-al
bob78711new 2025-08-10 05:32 p.m.
there is a hearing this afternoon which should settle this
bob78711new 2025-08-10 05:32 p.m.
if there is anything remaining unanswered then plaintiff can amend his complaint
bob78711newthere is a hearing this afternoon which should settle this
meowiitten 2025-08-10 05:41 p.m.
A related case doesn't settle this that's not how it works
bob78711new 2025-08-10 05:42 p.m.
we will move to dismiss depending on the ruling
meowiitten 2025-08-10 05:44 p.m.
Buddy that's not how that works(edited)
bob78711newsinghski 2025-08-10 05:47 p.m.
no it really isn't(edited)
singhski 2025-08-10 05:48 p.m.
I'm not sure why this misconception is still alive when I debunked it not too long ago
singhski 2025-08-10 05:48 p.m.
the others are in relation to the County Commission
singhski 2025-08-10 05:48 p.m.
this is challenging the authority of EVERY defendant named in the complaint
singhskino it really isn't(edited)
bob78711new 2025-08-10 05:51 p.m.
Daniel crusoe is not even on the board so that needs to be amended
singhskimeowiitten 2025-08-10 06:49 p.m.
7:30 PM EST?
meowiitten 2025-08-10 06:49 p.m.
or 45
meowiitten 2025-08-10 06:50 p.m.
I'm good at 45 but 30 is cutting it close
meowiittenI'm good at 45 but 30 is cutting it close
singhski 2025-08-10 06:52 p.m.@bob78711new 7:30 good for you?
singhskimeowiitten 2025-08-10 06:54 p.m.
Lets do 45
singhskibob78711new 2025-08-10 06:56 p.m.
no
bob78711new 2025-08-10 06:56 p.m.
I have court at 8:30
bob78711new 2025-08-10 06:56 p.m.
Can we do this tomorrow?
meowiitten 2025-08-10 06:57 p.m.
I mean the cases are happening back to back why can't you
meowiitten 2025-08-10 06:57 p.m.
This is also court
bob78711newCan we do this tomorrow?
singhski 2025-08-10 06:59 p.m.
You don't have that much time to respond to the MSJ
singhski 2025-08-10 06:59 p.m.
per our scheduling rules you were given 48 hours
singhski 2025-08-10 06:59 p.m.
so I'm certain almost that this is probably the fairest shot you have to present your case
singhskiYou don't have that much time to respond to the MSJ
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:01 p.m.
Cant we do it first thing tomorrow?
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:01 p.m.
or like an hour
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:01 p.m.
after court today
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:01 p.m.
and plantiff still needs to amend his complaint
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:03 p.m.
your honor the plantiff is also asking for almost the same exact relief as well
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:03 p.m.
would it not be better to allow the other case which was filed first to play out?
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:03 p.m.
thats the hearing I have at 8:30
meowiitten 2025-08-10 07:04 p.m.
Bush v. Gore was argued and decided in 2 days
meowiittenBush v. Gore was argued and decided in 2 days
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:07 p.m.
that was on the eve of an election
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:07 p.m.
there is already a TRO in place
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:07 p.m.
there is no rush to do anything because of the TRO
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:07 p.m.
especialy on such a delicate matter
singhski 2025-08-10 07:07 p.m.
I don't know what you don't understand, that TRO was against different defendants
singhski 2025-08-10 07:08 p.m.
and we decided this hearing would be conducted today
singhski 2025-08-10 07:08 p.m.
I intend on sticking to the court's schedule
singhskiI don't know what you don't understand, that TRO was against different defendants
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:08 p.m.
you cant enjoin the Sheriff and DA from doing their dutys that are still active
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:08 p.m.
daniel crusoe does not serve on the county board
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:08 p.m.
so he has no power
bob78711newdaniel crusoe does not serve on the county board
singhski 2025-08-10 07:09 p.m.@meowiitten Was this true when you filed your complaint
singhski 2025-08-10 07:09 p.m.
also, if that is the case we will dismiss the action against him
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:09 p.m.
and arvantise is already enjoined
singhskibob78711new 2025-08-10 07:09 p.m.
he resigned from CB and CE within 2 minutes
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:09 p.m.
so like
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:10 p.m.
what are we doing here chat
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:12 p.m.@singhski its even stated in his evidence
singhski 2025-08-10 07:12 p.m.
raise at the hearing
singhskimeowiitten 2025-08-10 07:12 p.m.
Im going off of the letter
singhski 2025-08-10 07:12 p.m.
like these are issues for the hearing
singhski 2025-08-10 07:12 p.m.
like these are issues for the hearing
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:12 p.m. 
meowiitten 2025-08-10 07:12 p.m.
It says he was appointed, made president, then made executive (?), then resigned
meowiitten 2025-08-10 07:13 p.m.
Also why does this matter yet
singhski 2025-08-10 07:13 p.m.
meowiitten 2025-08-10 07:13 p.m.
Yes thank you
singhski 2025-08-10 07:13 p.m.
These are issues for the hearing. Please raise them there.
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:13 p.m.
like this is just a duplicate proceeding
singhski 2025-08-10 07:13 p.m.
If you can, we could join the game right now, I do not mind.
singhskiIf you can, we could join the game right now, I do not mind.
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:13 p.m.
as long as we are done before 8:30
bob78711newas long as we are done before 8:30
singhski 2025-08-10 07:14 p.m.
We will surely be done by then
singhskiWe will surely be done by then
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:14 p.m.
alright
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:14 p.m.
VC?
singhski 2025-08-10 07:14 p.m.
Waiting to see if Sado is ready
singhski 2025-08-10 07:14 p.m.
yes, vc
singhski 2025-08-10 07:16 p.m.@meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-10 07:22 p.m.
Yes I’m ready
meowiitten 2025-08-10 07:23 p.m.@singhski I can’t join the game though
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:23 p.m.
discord works for me too
singhski 2025-08-10 07:24 p.m.
We will start soon
singhski 2025-08-10 07:24 p.m.
setting everything up
singhskisetting everything up
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:28 p.m.
your honor there is now a little over an hour before the next hearing
meowiitten 2025-08-10 07:29 p.m.
Relax
singhski 2025-08-10 07:29 p.m.
this might be more important anyways(edited)
singhski 2025-08-10 07:29 p.m.
it could be joever for you
singhskithis might be more important anyways(edited)
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:32 p.m.
its adressing the same thing
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:32 p.m.
its almost identical to the other one except it names daniel
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:32 p.m.
just as the other one did
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:33 p.m.
but the other one was amended
meowiitten 2025-08-10 07:36 p.m.@singhski Stage is set up
bob78711new 2025-08-10 07:37 p.m.@singhski need to be brought up
bob78711new 2025-08-10 08:02 p.m.
meowiitten 2025-08-10 08:09 p.m.
meowiitten 2025-08-10 08:10 p.m.@bob78711new @singhski
vloqsouls 2025-08-10 08:16 p.m.
singhski used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-08-10 08:16 p.m. @singhski has added @Deverus to the case channel.
Case Modified
Deverus 2025-08-10 08:18 p.m.
some fucking pop-up kicked me out of the stage @singhski
meowiitten 2025-08-10 09:10 p.m.@singhski When can we get a ruling Sir
meowiitten 2025-08-10 09:10 p.m.
Please
meowiittensinghski 2025-08-11 08:14 a.m.
Within the next 5 hours
singhskiWithin the next 5 hours
meowiitten 2025-08-11 01:29 p.m.
Alright
UserMessage could not be loaded.
meowiitten 2025-08-11 01:30 p.m.
meowiitten 2025-08-11 01:30 p.m.@singhski Second notice of supplemental authority
meowiitten 2025-08-11 04:14 p.m.@singhski I’m mad as fuck
meowiittenian 2025-08-11 04:37 p.m.
me too
ian 2025-08-11 04:37 p.m.
rahhhh 
UserMessage could not be loaded.
singhski 2025-08-11 04:40 p.m.
singhski 2025-08-11 04:40 p.m.
Cc: @ian @bob78711new @meowiitten
singhskiClick to see attachment.
bob78711new 2025-08-11 04:45 p.m.
the charter was never declared defunct in the other case?
meowiitten 2025-08-11 04:48 p.m.
Pipe down please
bob78711newthe charter was never declared defunct in the other case?
AlbertBlackwell 2025-08-11 04:48 p.m. 
AlbertBlackwellClick to see attachment.
bob78711new 2025-08-11 04:48 p.m.
not the amendment
bob78711new 2025-08-11 04:49 p.m.
the judge is saying the entire charter
bob78711new 2025-08-11 04:49 p.m.
is void
meowiitten 2025-08-11 04:49 p.m.
Defunct not void
singhski 2025-08-11 04:53 p.m.
Grok summarize
singhskiGrok summarize
ian 2025-08-11 07:31 p.m. 
ianClick to see attachment.
Deverus 2025-08-12 05:29 p.m.
krm used /transcript
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-12 10:15 a.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-12 10:15 a.m. Permissions have been synced to
Channel Permissions Synced
Volume XIclerkFlow Bot2025-09-12 10:15 a.m.
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1329678726383927409/1416064740425207958 Successfully created transcript.
Exported 301 messages